You have to understand the process of demolition implosions. If the job of pre-weakening and placement of explosives is not properly done, the result can be an unsuccessful demolition operation.

OK Skyeagle this is what I don't understand (and a point Stundie was making too I believe). Why is it that a demolition must be controlled and done with the utmost care or it will fail, and yet random fire damage succeeds perfectly? OK let's say I accept that this time the random damage got lucky and did what a controlled demolition sometimes fails to do due to a lack of careful preparation. Coincidences do happen. But when too many coincidences pile up, I think people start to look at the situation rather squinty-eyed.
eta: Another odd thing, and this is just a footnote, I clicked on four of the debunking videos in youtube (didn't want to click on them all) and all of them had comments disabled, I'm assuming all of the debunking videos (at least from that source) have comments disabled. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that...did he do it because he didn't want anyone talking back, like a dictator not tolerating dissent, or was he afraid some comments might get some people thinking and/or wanting to do their own research? It's just a question, I doubt if you have an answer since you didn't create those videos that I'm aware of, but I can't help but feel that this sort of thing helps fuel the fires of CT.

OK Skyeagle this is what I don't understand (and a point Stundie was making too I believe). Why is it that a demolition must be controlled and done with the utmost care or it will fail, and yet random fire damage succeeds perfectly?

It is all in the way they affect the structure. Let's first take explosives. Many people have the wrong idea that placing explosives within a building will automatically bring it down but that is not true at all and we can go back to the year, 1993, and use the WTC1 bombing as an example.

You will notice that not one steel column was destroyed by that huge bomb even though the columns are sitting within the bomb crater. Explosives have to be firmly and properly attached to a structure otherwise you are going to have scenes like this where these buildings absorbed multiple bomb and cruise missile strikes yet remained standing.

If the demolition process is not done correctly then you will have something like these demolition operations gone wrong.

The point is, blast waves from an explosion will simply flow around steel columns whereas fire will affect and weaken unprotected steel columns directly at temperatures far below the melting point of steel to the point where load redistribution is no longer effective. You can damage a section of steel structure and the load will be redistributed, but in the case of a fire, the whole unprotected structure can be affected to the point of failure..

To sum it up, blast waves will flow around steel columns like the wind flow around the wing of an airplane whereas fire weakens unprotected steel columns directly at temperatures far below the melting point of steel.

Quote

OK let's say I accept that this time the random damage got lucky and did what a controlled demolition sometimes fails to do due to a lack of careful preparation. Coincidences do happen. But when too many coincidences pile up, I think people start to look at the situation rather squinty-eyed.

Let's look at it this way;

Explosives

Senario 1: RDX is firmly and properly placed on a steel column and cuts the steel column in two sections, but it still takes an explosive such as dynamite to blow apart the column in order to complete the process, otherwise, the structural load will be taken up by other undamaged columns and if not blown apart, the damaged column can still take up the slack as the upper section of the column is jammed against the lower section, which is why an explosive is needed to blow apart the columns n order to facilitate a collapse..

Senario 2: An explosive device is placed away from a steel column and detonated. The result will be what occurred beneath WTC1 in 1993, which did not destroy a single steel column despite the fact the columns are sitting within the bomb crater..

Fire

Senario 1: Fire rages inside a building with fire-protection surrounding its steel columns. The steel columns will remain standing because they are protected from temperatures capable of weakening the steel.

Senario 2: Fire rages within a building with unprotected steel columns. That will result in steel column failures due to exposure of temperatures capable of weakening steel.

And yet AGAIN you do not address the topic. Is this your way of conceding that the stories of hijackers supposedly still being alive all stopped after the FBI released the official list? Or are you just avoiding it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on?

The topic is very broad indeed sir, but may be reduced to one simple statement: Either one believes the official story, or one does not.

You choose the former, I choose the latter. No problem at all.

While the attacks at WTC and the Pentagon did indeed happen, the story is a hoax, in virtually every detail. We were all deceived that morning, and traumatized. Some have been able to get past that, while others have not. Such is life, eh?

Neither you nor anybody else can prove any element of the official story, except that 2 airplanes hit the towers and they subsequently came down. Indeed, close examination of the evidence available reveals the official story to be a hoax.

The topic is very broad indeed sir, but may be reduced to one simple statement: Either one believes the official story, or one does not.

You choose the former, I choose the latter. No problem at all.

While the attacks at WTC and the Pentagon did indeed happen, the story is a hoax, in virtually every detail. We were all deceived that morning, and traumatized. Some have been able to get past that, while others have not. Such is life, eh?

Neither you nor anybody else can prove any element of the official story, except that 2 airplanes hit the towers and they subsequently came down. Indeed, close examination of the evidence available reveals the official story to be a hoax.

Keep on keepin' on, is all I can say to you, and enjoy life.

I should have known better than to think you might actually discuss a topic.

By the way, the fact that all stories of hijackers being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released can be proven. Very telling that you can't actually argue the topic.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

I thought it would be interesting to compare the Beijing Hotel and WTC7 fires:

To keep it fair and balanced, here's an OCT video (at least this one did allow comments):

One thing that gets me are all the coincidences...they just seem to keep piling up. For example, the towers had just switched from public ownership to private ownership, and the new owner (forget his name I do) had them insured specifically against terrorism. Considering they had previously been a target perhaps that is not too surprising. As I recall, he paid something like 15 million for the towers and got 7 billion from the insurance. Quite a return on his investment, eh? I sure wish I could get a return like that at the bank. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these facts.
Like I think I said before, I can see some coincidences, but it seems like they just keep piling up. Like how Rumsfeld switched the fighter response protocol before the attack, and then switched it right back, after the attack, as Q24 (I believe it was he) pointed out.

I should have known better than to think you might actually discuss a topic.

By the way, the fact that all stories of hijackers being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released can be proven. Very telling that you can't actually argue the topic.

If you think it can be proven that there were hijackers on those airplanes, then please, by all means, have at it. If you think you can prove any element of the OCT, then please, by all means, have at it. I would be most interested in such proof.

But remember, for many of us, government statements and out of context photographs DO NOT constitute proof.

If you think it can be proven that there were hijackers on those airplanes, then please, by all means, have at it.

that is NOT what I said. Please learn to read correctly.
AGAIN because you seem to want to look like a troll, the statement was "all stories of hijackers being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released can be proven" and it is YOU that has the burden of proof to show otherwise. But we all know you won't.

Edited by frenat, 16 February 2013 - 03:20 PM.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

As Churchill said of Soviet foreign policy ("a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma"), 9/11 will remain in history as our generation's most unfathomable debacle, something of "a tortuous puzzle inside a confounding riddle wrapped in a lead-sealed enigma that may or may not have been orchestrated by a multi-tier international conspiracy that may or may not ever be revealed if there is any revelation to be had." JFK's assassination is to 9/11 as Rubik's Cube is to the ineffable nature of time travel.

The topic is very broad indeed sir, but may be reduced to one simple statement: Either one believes the official story, or one does not.

While the attacks at WTC and the Pentagon did indeed happen, the story is a hoax, in virtually every detail.

What has been proven false is your claim that American 77 passed north of the gas station, which can be proven as false by the path of destruction leading up to, and inside, the Pentagon. You brought up that P700 anti-ship missile and that has been proven as false as evident by the fact that the wreckage recovered at the Pentagon is that from a B-757, and add to the fact that not one single piece has been attributed to a P700 anti-ship missile.

You implied that explosives could have brought down the light poles and that has been proven false as evident by impact damage on those light poles. You claim that no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon despite B-757 wreckage recovered outside and inside the Pentagon.

In other words, you have struck out and it is evident that you spew false tales on a regular basis.

Quote

Indeed, close examination of the evidence available reveals the official story to be a hoax.

You've just threw another false tale over the plate, which was slammed out of Reality stadium by the #1 hitter, Facts T. Evidence. What does the "T" stand for? Truth.

Everyone knows the kind of game you play, which explains why you continue to lose on a regular basis.

One thing that gets me are all the coincidences...they just seem to keep piling up. For example, the towers had just switched from public ownership to private ownership, and the new owner (forget his name I do) had them insured specifically against terrorism. Considering they had previously been a target perhaps that is not too surprising. As I recall, he paid something like 15 million for the towers and got 7 billion from the insurance. Quite a return on his investment, eh? I sure wish I could get a return like that at the bank. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these facts.
Like I think I said before, I can see some coincidences, but it seems like they just keep piling up. Like how Rumsfeld switched the fighter response protocol before the attack, and then switched it right back, after the attack, as Q24 (I believe it was he) pointed out.

Thngs are not always what the seem. For an example, Rumsfeld, had no authority to issue shoot down orders of airliners on his own and in some cases, commanders refused to pass on shoot down orders for fear of shooting down an innocent airliner. Let's read what an F-15 pilot has said.

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.Coincidentally, at the very moment, the plane slammed into Tower One.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."When United Airlines Flight 175, piloted by Atta's hijack-partner Marwan Al Shehhi, crashed into Tower Two at 9:02 a.m., the two F-15's were about 71 miles - eight minutes away - from Manhattan.By the time "Nasty" got word of a second hijacked plane, it had already smashed into Tower Two, he told the paper. But the idea that the F-15's, had they been scrambled earlier, might have been able to shoot down the hijackers is pure conjecture, "Nasty" told the paper.

At the time, military pilots had no such standing orders. Absent a presidential directive they had no authority to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky.

Controllers from the Northeast Air Defense Sector would spot an aircraft on their radar and ask the pilots to investigate and steer it away from Manhattan’s airspace. Over a four-hour period, Nash and Duffy repeated the process for between 50 and 100 aircraft.

When the South Tower of the trade center fell at 9:59 a.m., Nash was flying east over Kennedy, escorting a small civilian airliner to a safe landing. “When we turned around,” he recalled, “Manhattan was covered with what I thought was smoke. But it was the dust from the collapsed tower.”

The pilots were over the North Tower when it collapsed at 10:28 a.m. From an altitude of 6,000 feet, according to Vittner’s report, Duffy watched the tower implode. Nash wasn’t looking down at the time; he only saw the aftermath. The plume of smoke and ash, he estimated, rose 5,000 feet above streets below.

The F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD techniques and its protocols nor were they in the communication loop of NEADS and NORAD. To further underline that point, Lt. Colonel Phil Thompson said it best when he said:

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise..."

He was the chief of safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

Video of the pilot 911 that conspiracist claimed, shot down United 93. He was nowhere near United 93 when it crashed nor even in the area.

Quote

Claims Surrounding a F-16 Pilot and United 93

Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT:Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93.

"I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

Despite the facts above, 911 conspiracist have claimed that the F-16 pilot shot down United 93. That is why I have warned not to allow yourself to be duped by those who have a habit of spewing flawed and misleading information, outright lies, disinformation and misinformation, otherwise, those who know the rest of he story will take notice.

Regarding the flight path of what probably wasn't 77, if 6 or 8 people including 2 cops saw the airplane north of the station, it seems likely they were all being truthful. I saw the video, and many if not all the videos were done actually AT the gas station. With pointing and talking, it looked to me like they were all telling the truth as best they knew it.

So for me trying to make up my mind, my choice is whether to believe you or them. It's not a hard decision.

It would have been impossible for them to see American 77 fly north of the gas station. The video proves that.

The damage along the flight path of American 77 proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

The distribution of debris and damage within the Pentagon reconfirms the south-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77.

,

One thing I'd like to know, I heard that the FBI confiscated all the video tapes, like from hotel security and such, that caught the object (whatever it was) that hit the Pentagon. I understand they'd like to see them to study them, but could they have just made copies? Did they ever give them back after studying them? Like I've said before, when everything seems so secretive and the PTB act like they're trying to hide something, no wonder CT abounds imo.
Also, Skyeage, I wonder what you think about this. The reason I put it in, I know statistically there are going to be some deaths if you take a large enough number of people, but doesn't this seem to you to be stretching the statistical odds?

As Churchill said of Soviet foreign policy ("a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma"), 9/11 will remain in history as our generation's most unfathomable debacle, something of "a tortuous puzzle inside a confounding riddle wrapped in a lead-sealed enigma that may or may not have been orchestrated by a multi-tier international conspiracy that may or may not ever be revealed if there is any revelation to be had." JFK's assassination is to 9/11 as Rubik's Cube is to the ineffable nature of time travel.

I agree completely, and the more time passes between the event and now, the colder the trail becomes, and imo I think the truth may forever be shrouded in darkness until the sea gives up her dead and all things are made known. Concerning JFK (sorry this is a little off topic) I've heard the Mafia had a hand in it because supposedly JFK was going to crack down on organized crime. I've also heard the CIA was behind it, also that the Federal Reserve had a hand in it because JFK was going to sign an order to have Congress print money again (not the Federal Reserve which was never supposed to in the first place). Maybe all of them were involved, I guess we'll never know.